jacklionheart

You will be able to toggle projects between Board and List view fairly soon (Note that the holiday season will push back the release cycle in general for a bit.)

Yep, I'm that Jack. I remember you now. Thanks for the clear picture of what it's like to be on the candidate side. Efficiency is clearly a goal, and we clearly failed here given that it took us a week to get back to you after the phone interivew. I do think your interview was an outlier in that regard, but that doesn't excuse it.

Re: the questions themselves, although I don't agree with your characterization of what's going on or what we're looking for, I definitely think there's a lot of room to improve on our data-science screening. I'll send you an email with more re: what specifically came up in your interview that made us reject.

Again, thanks for taking the time to share this really explicit feedback.

(For the record, I don't really know what you're referring to re: Asana and Agile.)

JFYI, that's not accurate. We've been sending this to candidates for months; the genuine impetus was to try to put all candidates on a more level and accurate playing field so that we can make better hires.

That's not to say it's not self-serving; of course we benefit from making more/better hires. But it's not just marketing.

> I appreciate the sentiment behind documents like this, but, Asana, you can do better. When you do, you'll find it gets easier to hire people, and, perhaps counterintuitively, the quality of your hires will go up.

I agree! (I don't even think it's counter-intuitive at all.) Thanks so much for really clear feedback.

Hi there! That sounds bad. Could you let me know what's giving you the impression that that's Asana's goal?

We really try to explicitly avoid that kind of interview evaluation, and put strong emphasis on Communication, User empathy, and Learning, per the guide. But definitely "did they say the right answer?" is an easy trap to fall into so its entirely possible that some interviewers are doing it -- would love any concrete feedback you could give to help us avoid it in the future.

Hi there -- I'm really sorry that you had such a negative experience. It sounds like we didn't honor how much time you'd put into the challenge, and that sucks.

I'd be happy to share more feedback with you if you're still interested, though it seems like you've moved on happily. Feel free to reach out to [email protected] and we can talk more.

Regardless, best of luck where you are now.

> I find it funny that startups only implement these ridiculous hiring practices after they start to grow

Hmm, I'm curious what you're assuming! At Asana, at least, our first hires went through many of the same questions that interviewers today go through, but we were just a lot less systematic about our evaluation and less scrupulous about accidentally testing for knowledge/context rather than ability. The intention of this guide was to make the interview /less/ bullshit-y, by giving people enough grounding to not be thrown off by unexpressed expectations.

Thanks for the feedback! What did you learn from those that yo u didn't see in the Asana one?

- Jack from asana

Hey -- I work at Asana.

Great idea! Took a task to add more resources to learn from to the doc.

> I feel very confident in doing day-to-day software development. I do not feel as confident speaking about abstract hypotheticals in front of a whiteboard.

Hmm, the way we framed that is confusing. Thanks for the feedback! To be sure, our goal is to accurately assess what your day-to-day contributions would be like, and simulation is a really good way of eliminating accidental bias in that process. To that end, we do have every engineer submit actual code during the interview process, and we generally avoid white-board programming in favor of higher-level discussions (that may also use the whiteboard). But perfect simulation is possible (and time-consuming), so we've tried to focus on the higher order bits.

The IDE support for TypeScript is actually pretty great; building our own tooling support for LunaScript felt like something we didn't really want to have to do.

Yes, but they've continued to invest in Instagram as a product. Will they do that here as well?

This doesn't make much sense to me since most of the transaction was in cash.

I have trouble imagining that infrastructure supporting 400M users "runs itself".